Radical Religion

[MightyAC]

Anti-gay activists argued before the Supreme Court today that they should be allowed to protest at military funerals.

The debate centered on whether the Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to hold signs such as “God hates you,” and, “God hates dead soldiers,” outside the funeral of a deceased Marine.

Albert Snyder, the soldier’s father, argued that the activists invaded his privacy during the 2006 protest in Maryland and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him and his family.

Margie Phelps, the daughter of Westboro’s pastor Fred Phelps and the lawyer for the church, retorted that her group was exercising free speech on a matter of public debate—the Iraq war.[/Quote]http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=35353

This story really bothers me. I am a calm person but if something like this happened near a funeral for one of my children I would have a really hard time stopping myself from driving my car over every single one of the protesters.

Most mythologies have their radicals and it is easy to despise christian homophobes and doctor killers or muslim suicide bombers, but my beef is with the enablers. The average church goer helps support all the evil that religion represents every time they show up for a service and help keep these delusional beliefs mainstream.

[Shady]

Well, that certainly is an interesting opinion. I would argue that's pretty radical as well.

[MightyAC]

I suppose it does sound radical to suggest that the run of the mill religious folk enable evil, but it shouldn't. These are the people that pay their dues and add to the political power of large organizations that kill people, demonize homosexuals, attack scientific knowledge, hold back and degrade women, spread disease, etc. These are the people that give power to the crazy social and cultural ideas that religion is beyond criticism. Without the masses religions lose their power.

There is a reason that religious participation decreases as education increases; the educated tend to think critically. We need to break this critical thinking barrier that religion has surrounded itself with and discredit the fairy tales.

I think the time has come to stop protecting hate and stupidity simply because the idea originated in a holy book. We need to promote good ideas and denounce bad ones regardless of their origin. I think the time has also come to treat politicians that profess belief in notions like a 6,000 year old earth like someone that just claimed to spot Elvis, alive and well, at the local super market.

Edited October 13, 2010 by MightyAC

[ToadBrother]

When you're all finished wringing your hands here, we're talking about Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, a group one could hardly argue that even by more fanatical Evangelical standards was anywhere near the mainstream. Pretty much everyone I've talked to finds Phelps and his gang to be a disgusting, publicity-seeking lot.

As to the rest, well, I'll criticize religious groups; Catholics for their anti-contraceptive stance, Evangelicals for their tendency towards anti-feminism and homophobia, Anglicans for, well, not standing for very much of anything at all , but the one thing I won't do is go around holier-than-thouing because some groups within a vast and complex religion like Christianity are completely batsh*t crazy. And I hope by taking this stance, I won't be judged by the more rude and obnoxious atheists out there.

[MightyAC]

As to the rest, well, I'll criticize religious groups; Catholics for their anti-contraceptive stance, Evangelicals for their tendency towards anti-feminism and homophobia, Anglicans for, well, not standing for very much of anything at all , but the one thing I won't do is go around holier-than-thouing because some groups within a vast and complex religion like Christianity are completely batsh*t crazy. And I hope by taking this stance, I won't be judged by the more rude and obnoxious atheists out there.

As an example let's focus on your criticism of the RCC and their anti-contraceptive stance. Where does the political power the Vatican commands come from? The tiny fraction of hard core, letter of cannon law following, devotees? No...it comes from the shear size of the flock and the donations and support they provide. So even though the average half-assed Catholic disagrees with much of what their leader commands, they are helping to greatly worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Is it rude or obnoxious to question or criticize someone's belief in ghosts, fate, unicorns or any number of conspiracy theories? Of course not, nor should it be taboo to do the same with religion. I happen to think that more open discussion of religion and what it represents, will lead people to examine their own beliefs and hasten the decline in religious participation. Especially in the first world.

[Shady]

So even though the average half-assed Catholic disagrees with much of what their leader commands, they are helping to greatly worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

There are many nuances and issues to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Much of which the Catholic church, or any church has nothing to do with. Your's is a great scape goat though.

[ToadBrother]

As an example let's focus on your criticism of the RCC and their anti-contraceptive stance. Where does the political power the Vatican commands come from? The tiny fraction of hard core, letter of cannon law following, devotees? No...it comes from the shear size of the flock and the donations and support they provide. So even though the average half-assed Catholic disagrees with much of what their leader commands, they are helping to greatly worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Religions, like it or not, are free associations. Outside of certain areas in North Africa, I know of no one forcing Roman Catholicism on the populace. They do so freely and of their own volition. If people freely choose to believe rubbish, I can criticize it, but I can hardly call it tyranny.

Is it rude or obnoxious to question or criticize someone's belief in ghosts, fate, unicorns or any number of conspiracy theories? Of course not, nor should it be taboo to do the same with religion. I happen to think that more open discussion of religion and what it represents, will lead people to examine their own beliefs and hasten the decline in religious participation. Especially in the first world.

Questioning is one thing. The behavior of some my fellow atheists, including Hitchens and Dawkins goes far beyond that. They're not interested in dialog, they're simply another kind of preach on another kind of pulpit.

[bloodyminded]

Questioning is one thing. The behavior of some my fellow atheists, including Hitchens and Dawkins goes far beyond that. They're not interested in dialog, they're simply another kind of preach on another kind of pulpit.

Yes, and it gets quite intensely irritating.

There are more than enough thoughtful, wonderful, and insightful people of Faith around; and without believing in the existence of a god, it can't hurt for me to live with a modicum of humility and a touch of Live and Let live.

[Michael Hardner]

... they are helping to greatly worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

And heavy metal makes people commit suicide, and convincing them to "rock".

Relevance ? Allow me...

The church is in the business of savings souls, i.e. letting people die if necessary, and metal is in the business of destroying eardrums. They have their purposes and whether or not you like them isn't relevant.

For you to say that the church isn't doing enough for people's corporeal bodies is like saying Slayer doesn't have enough trombone solos.

Yes. It's exactly like that.

[MightyAC]

There are many nuances and issues to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Much of which the Catholic church, or any church has nothing to do with. Your's is a great scape goat though.

The every sperm is sacred stance has many negative side effects, including worsening the AIDS epidemic.

[MightyAC]

Religions, like it or not, are free associations. Outside of certain areas in North Africa, I know of no one forcing Roman Catholicism on the populace. They do so freely and of their own volition. If people freely choose to believe rubbish, I can criticize it, but I can hardly call it tyranny.

I didn't call it tyranny. Many people continued to believe the world was flat and the sun circled the earth long after it was proven otherwise...and they did so freely. Examination, facts, critical thinking eventually led the populace to believe differently. That's what I'm hoping for here because religious ideas are not only just incredibly unlikely but many are very dangerous and evil as well.

The problem is society has built a protective cocoon around religion. We cannot criticize it, we have to grant it some sort of special respect, by default those that do not believe are somehow incomplete or immoral. That's what I want to change. Let's make it acceptable to criticize bad ideas regardless of their origin.

The place to start is with the millions of unthinking, first world, educated enablers. It would be very hard to convince the guy at the top of the pyramid scheme to change his ways...he has too much invested. However some rational discussion with those at the base of the pyramid, who are propping up the scheme, could really topple the entire structure.

Questioning is one thing. The behavior of some my fellow atheists, including Hitchens and Dawkins goes far beyond that. They're not interested in dialog, they're simply another kind of preach on another kind of pulpit.

I disagree. I think we need the uber antagonistic Hitch, the cold scientific Dawkins just as much as the softer, philosophical Dan Dennet and the smooth, logical Sam Harris. They all have their place and reach a different audience. You may not want to offend somebody's traditional, accident of birth beliefs. That's great, nobody is asking you too. Calm, cool, reason has its place as well and I really hope yours rubs off on some. However, the breaking down of well constructed and well funded barriers to reason does not happen without stepping on a few toes so we do need the brash and cold as well. Plus I'm willing to bet that the death threats, quote mining attacks and personal character assaults leads one to become a little more abrasive.

[MightyAC]

There are more than enough thoughtful, wonderful, and insightful people of Faith around; and without believing in the existence of a god, it can't hurt for me to live with a modicum of humility and a touch of Live and Let live.

When the religious are attacking science, education, homosexuals, other religions, women, etc...live and let live may not be the best stance. Kind of like when the RCC celebrated Hitler's birthday.

[Bonam]

The real point here are the disgusting and hurtful acts of the imbeciles of the Westboro Baptist Church. What is in conflict are the rights of the family and friends to have a peaceful and solemn time at the funeral of a deceased soldier, and the right of free speech of these most hateful religious wackos.

And the solution is simple. They have the right to free speech on public property. Simply provide large enough funeral facilities for deceased soldiers so that the idiots are out of sight and out of mind, outside of the private property of the funeral facility. And, if they dare to set foot on the private property during the funeral without permission, apply the castle doctrine liberally.

[bloodyminded]

I disagree. I think we need the uber antagonistic Hitch, the cold scientific Dawkins just as much as the softer, philosophical Dan Dennet and the smooth, logical Sam Harris. They all have their place and reach a different audience. You may not want to offend somebody's traditional, accident of birth beliefs. That's great, nobody is asking you too. Calm, cool, reason has its place as well and I really hope yours rubs off on some. However, the breaking down of well constructed and well funded barriers to reason does not happen without stepping on a few toes so we do need the brash and cold as well. Plus I'm willing to bet that the death threats, quote mining attacks and personal character assaults leads one to become a little more abrasive.

Speaking for Hitch, he was always abrasive; long before he received any death threats (which every controversial and influential pundit, from the vapid Coulters to the more impressive Chomsky, have had to deal with); when he was an upper-middle-class fame-chaser in university, with pretences to Trotskyism, he was abrasive.

He was abrasive when he was a left-wing polemicist; he's abrasive now that he's a neo-con who defends the government lying its citizenry into war. (Seriously; he openly defended the practice, in direct opposition to the democratic principles he claims to cherish.) And now that his atheism has become his new cause, he is determined to offend. An occasional shining moment aside (for he does, occasionally, prove some genuine insight and humanity), I think he values the label "contrarian" more than he values the ostensible project of enlightenment.

[Timothy17]

I suppose it does sound radical to suggest that the run of the mill religious folk enable evil, but it shouldn't.

And run of the mill people don't enable evil, either ? So, by not being part of a religion, one is suddenly incapable of enabling evil ?

These are the people that pay their dues and add to the political power of large organizations that kill people,

Though I am not sure which organization you are talking about, it is a sore point at many Canadian churches that we are forced to pay for things like abortion-on-demand ; however, at least if I found out my local Church was somehow killing people, I could stop donating money to them - I can't do the same for the government.

demonize homosexuals,

While I admit the obvious existence of homophobia that transcends religious groupings and is part of a larger social phenomenon, please don't paint everyone with the same brush. The Church has always openly taught her reasons for her stand against homosexuality, and that has to do with her belief that it is an act being done that is contrary to nature (natural law), arising from a disordered (sexual) appetite. Nowhere is it ever permitted to "demonize" anyone, as everyone enjoys the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life.

attack scientific knowledge,

Scientific knowledge is always "under attack." That's how it is proven and tested. You speak of scientific knowledge like some sacred relic, and later you lambast religion for thinking it's "beyond criticism." Hmm.

hold back and degrade women,

From what ? How are they degraded ? How is the Church's love of the Ever-Virgin Mother of God, Mother of our Hope, Life, and Salvation, the Queen of Heaven, degrading of women, or in any way lead any mind to think that women are not perfectly capable of saintliness, holiness and blessedness, etc ? Or St. Joan of Arc, or Mother Theresa, or St. Gianna, ad infinitum. The example of these women have the power to redeem women in the eyes of even the most bigoted of peoples.

spread disease,

Sending your kids to elementary school is a sure fire way to acquire and spread diseases. Ask any parent. Does that mean schools should be closed ?

etc. These are the people that give power to the crazy social and cultural ideas that religion is beyond criticism.

Never heard that one before.

Without the masses religions lose their power.

Seeing as just about every single religion began with one person, I am not sure how you can imagine that "the masses" are the prerequisite for religion.

Tim

Edited October 17, 2010 by Timothy17

[GostHacked]

Seeing as just about every single religion began with one person, I am not sure how you can imagine that "the masses" are the prerequisite for religion.

The masses are needed to justify the thoughts of the person who started the religion. Or else he is just another nutter on the street talking about the end of the world.

[Timothy17]

The every sperm is sacred stance has many negative side effects, including worsening the AIDS epidemic.

Lol, I assure you, as a devout Catholic I have never imagined that my sperm, singular or plural, is somehow sacred, nor has that ever even been implied to me by anything I have read. I have yet to see a painting of a sperm with a halo around its "head." I have, however, been taught that life is sacred.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Timothy17

[Timothy17]

The masses are needed to justify the thoughts of the person who started the religion. Or else he is just another nutter on the street talking about the end of the world.

Sounds a lot like democracy to me

[Timothy17]

There is a reason that religious participation decreases as education increases; the educated tend to think critically.

I think you would find your notion here sorely mistaken. Not all religions are anti-intellectual ; in fact, my religion fosters and encourages it. I have never been more challenged to think and learn than by the doctrines and doctors of my Faith. Pope John Paull wrote in his encyclical, "Fides et Ratio,"

"Faith and Reason are like two wings, on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of Truth..."

Hardly a statement we would imagine from someone who doesn't want people to think, reason or learn. The monopolization of science as used by certain atheists has, to an extent, on one hand left people feeling robbed or alienated while on the other leaving people feeling as if they are under attack. In my Faith we believe our Faith is itself a gift and a patrimony that we are to further explore and deliver on to the next generation as we found it, pure and undefiled : I think it is owing to this feeling that the Faith is itself a patrimony for all mankind that we likewise feel scientific knowledge is also a kind of patrimony that likewise should be treated respectfully, explored, developed and delivered on.

I can confidently say that my Faith is an ally for any pursuit of Truth or understanding as such, and fears not the conclusions or results, because as a mature Faith it is confident that with greater study, and greater understanding, we can but only discover the Truth that is God.

Tim

Edited October 17, 2010 by Timothy17

[GostHacked]

Sounds a lot like democracy to me

It does. Can we claim politics a religion then so we get all the benefits of a church without them asking for money .... wait.

[scribblet]

Fred Phelps and his followers are pond scum they are a very vocal minority with members who are lawyers, therefore are better able to manipulate the system. They are radical but sure don't represent Christianity and are not indicative of any group, they are just plain nuts.

I do feel for the relatives and hope that something can be worked out, the court has allready ruled that the protesters have to be so many feet back. One thing that can be done (but not at the funeral itself) is somehow, meet them with peaceful counter protests, let them know how people feel about them, confront them peacefully every time they show up for something.

[ToadBrother]

I didn't call it tyranny. Many people continued to believe the world was flat and the sun circled the earth long after it was proven otherwise...and they did so freely. Examination, facts, critical thinking eventually led the populace to believe differently. That's what I'm hoping for here because religious ideas are not only just incredibly unlikely but many are very dangerous and evil as well.

Most people, at the best of times don't do critical thinking very well. You want the same dog, you just want someone else holding the leash.

The problem is society has built a protective cocoon around religion. We cannot criticize it, we have to grant it some sort of special respect, by default those that do not believe are somehow incomplete or immoral. That's what I want to change. Let's make it acceptable to criticize bad ideas regardless of their origin.

No one's bashing down my door and taking me to the Inquisition, and I have frequently condemned the Vatican's stance on many issues. If there's a protective cocoon, it seems to be malfunctioning very badly.

The place to start is with the millions of unthinking, first world, educated enablers. It would be very hard to convince the guy at the top of the pyramid scheme to change his ways...he has too much invested. However some rational discussion with those at the base of the pyramid, who are propping up the scheme, could really topple the entire structure.

The analogy you invoke escapes me.

I disagree. I think we need the uber antagonistic Hitch, the cold scientific Dawkins just as much as the softer, philosophical Dan Dennet and the smooth, logical Sam Harris. They all have their place and reach a different audience. You may not want to offend somebody's traditional, accident of birth beliefs. That's great, nobody is asking you too. Calm, cool, reason has its place as well and I really hope yours rubs off on some. However, the breaking down of well constructed and well funded barriers to reason does not happen without stepping on a few toes so we do need the brash and cold as well. Plus I'm willing to bet that the death threats, quote mining attacks and personal character assaults leads one to become a little more abrasive.

I don't think they're accomplishing anything, other than pissing off religious people and getting a bunch of thin-skinned atheists all excited at their brand new evangelical clergy. I find their arguments infantile. Dawkins I admire as a scientist, as a polemicist, well, frankly, I don't admire polemicists.

My wife is a Catholic. It has taught me the value of compromise and more importantly, of empathy. I have no desire to convert her, and she has done the same to me. Any criticisms we have of each others' world views is done in a respectful manner, not in a "religious people are all stupid!" manner. What counts to me in a pluralistic secular society is everyone being able to get along. I really do not want to convert anyone and find rhetoric like "teaching children religion is child abuse" to put pointless, vulgar hyperbole designed only to anger people.

Edited October 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

Fred Phelps and his followers are pond scum they are a very vocal minority with members who are lawyers, therefore are better able to manipulate the system. They are radical but sure don't represent Christianity and are not indicative of any group, they are just plain nuts.

I do feel for the relatives and hope that something can be worked out, the court has allready ruled that the protesters have to be so many feet back. One thing that can be done (but not at the funeral itself) is somehow, meet them with peaceful counter protests, let them know how people feel about them, confront them peacefully every time they show up for something.

I like the methods of the group called "The Angels" (or perhaps there's more to their title? I can't remember.) They peaceflly encircle the Phelps protesters, raising big wings to block them from the sight of the bereaved. Effective, peaceful, sweet.

[ToadBrother]

I like the methods of the group called "The Angels" (or perhaps there's more to their title? I can't remember.) They peaceflly encircle the Phelps protesters, raising big wings to block them from the sight of the bereaved. Effective, peaceful, sweet.

Still, part of the reason that Phelps and Co. do this is because of the attention they get. I'll wager if the media just simply stopped showing up, they'd all go home. They're grade A attention whores, just religious variants on the kid in your grade 2 class who used to eat worms just to shock the crap out of everyone.

[bloodyminded]

Still, part of the reason that Phelps and Co. do this is because of the attention they get. I'll wager if the media just simply stopped showing up, they'd all go home. They're grade A attention whores, just religious variants on the kid in your grade 2 class who used to eat worms just to shock the crap out of everyone.

Yes, they're the sort of people who take pride in being grotesque jerks. They're losers.